When Did The Prime Directive Change And Why?

[sonak]

If you're not one who has strong objections to the way the Prime Directive is interpreted and applied in modern Trek, this thread may not matter to you. But at any rate...


As far as I understand it, in the days of the original series, the PD meant non-interference in the culture of pre-warp, pre-alien contact civilizations. Basically, don't tell them what kind of government to have, don't give them new technology they haven't actually developed themselves, etc. It DID NOT MEAN non-interference with natural disasters that threatened various civilizations.(This can be proved by the TOS episode "The Paradise Syndrome" where the Enterprise is trying to prevent an asteroid impact on a pre-alien contact civilization. I think this is the right episode, anyway.)

The first change seems to have come in the TNG era, when it seemed to be policy to not interfere even in the cases of natural disasters if the civilization was pre-warp, pre-alien contact. (See "Pen Pals," "Homeward," etc.)

Then, in the Voyager era, the PD seemed to mean whatever Janeway wanted. Even though the Kazon had warp drive capability and had contact with alien races, she wouldn't share Federation technology, because that would be "interference."

"Dear Doctor" is beyond the scope of this topic, since it's in a pre-PD time period, but it takes this continuing approach to a reprehensible level.

Now, the TOS-era PD could be defended on a flexible level, as long as one did not get rigid about its enforcement. (As Kirk clearly wasn't, witness "The Apple.") More technologically advanced civilizations probably shouldn't typically be going around willy-nilly interfering with other cultures and disrupting their development, but in the case of disasters that the less technologically-advanced cultures can't deal with, the UFP could still step in to help.


But to me, there is no reasonable defense for modern Trek's screw-up of the PD. I think that there was just a misinterpretation of the original concept, and it's only spiraled downward from there. Taken to the Voyager extreme, the Federation would have to be almost isolationist to avoid "cultural interference." Was this change for dramatic purposes? For example, it created conflict between Voyager and the Kazon, where otherwise there wouldn't really be a reason not to engage in trade with them.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I always figured that the Prime Directive could be interpreted in many ways by starship captains. Some captains may choose to stretch it as far as possible if they feel it's the right thing to do, while others may go solely by the book--"no interference, means no interference whatsoever."

There probably where some 24th-Century Starfleet captains who probably interpreted the Prime Directive very much like Kirk, IMO, but they probably weren't commanding the Federation flagship, fighting a war with the Maquis or the Dominion, or struggling to lead their lost ship safely through the Delta Quadrant...

 

[Sector 7]

sonak, I tend to agree with you. In TOS, the Prime Directive was meant much like the medical oath to "first do no harm". Only later was the PD taken to the extreme of "do nothing... period". Preventing a catastrophic natural disaster is quite different from interfering by giving them phasers and photon torpedoes. IMO, it is immoral to watch an entire race of people die because some rule was interpreted so literally.

 

[Anwar]

Why? Nobody stopped to help Earth when they suffered a nuclear war by stopping said war, and Earth dealt with it. If a society can't deal with the natural problems that their own society or their environment throw at them, it's their own fault.

In TOS the PD was just some random plot device for Kirk to break, it wasn't until TNG they made it a real rule.

 

[BillJ]

Why? Nobody stopped to help Earth when they suffered a nuclear war by stopping said war, and Earth dealt with it. If a society can't deal with the natural problems that their own society or their environment throw at them, it's their own fault.

In TOS the PD was just some random plot device for Kirk to break, it wasn't until TNG they made it a real rule.

It felt more like a real rule (with realistic exceptions) in TOS, in TNG they treated it like (bad) scripture.

Of course, it's those silly pre-industrial aliens fault for not being able to stop an asteroid from hitting their planet. What Earth did, they did to themselves.

 

[YARN]

TNG simply reflects the hyper-pluralism of its time.

If you decide that there is no reason why you can judge another culture, then you have no grounds for intervention.

As another poster observed, the PD is no longer a moral rule, but an absolute dogma.

 

[The Badger]

I read somewhere (can't remember where) that Gene Roddenberry was so insistent on respecting the PD in the early days of TNG that other writers grew to really dislike it. As such they deliberately set out to show the PD in a bad light. I don't know if that's true or not, but it certainly would explain the change in attitude.

As the OP points out, in TOS it was clearly the case that Star Fleet could act to protect innocents from disasters that they did not bring upon themselves. This had clearly changed by TNG, there was a line from Picard (I can't recall which episode) where he states that the PD is essentially there to protect Star Fleet from making difficult moral choices. From a selfless ideal to a selfish rule.

As to Anwar's point that "Nobody stopped to help Earth when they suffered a nuclear war by stopping said war", true, but but not really applicable IMO. Quite apart from the fact, as ENT made clear, that there were fewer warp capable species at that time, and hence a lower probability of anyone being aware of the situation, or possessing sufficient resources to help, there is also the moral dimension.

In Trek humanity is often held up to be ethically and morally superior to other races. So the fact that other species do not do something does not prove that inaction is right. Hypothetical situation: Suppose that after the nuclear war humanity was helped, by the Ferengi, who charged considerably for it. Would that make it morally acceptable for Picard to offer assistance to a doomed species, providing he could make a tidy profit from it? I hope you'd agree that the answer is 'no'. So why should humanity take the actions/inactions of others as a guide to formulating their own codes of behaviour?

 

[sonak]

I didn't know that about Roddenberry's stance in the TNG era. I'd previously assumed that the change in the PD was due to TNG-era writers. However, I did read in one of the behind-the-scenes books that there was dissent about the "new PD," among the writers, with Ron Moore mentioned as being very anti-new PD, regarding episodes like "Homeward."

I doubt I'm going to persuade Anwar, but that viewpoint is extremely callous. Just think of what potential contributions so-called "less-advanced civilizations" could make in the future if they are helped in facing natural disasters beyond their control.

 

[YARN]

I'm surprised someone hasn't cited the mantra IDIC as a key reason for non-intervention.

 

[JiNX-01]

It felt more like a real rule (with realistic exceptions) in TOS, in TNG they treated it like (bad) scripture.

Actually, Picard did flagrantly disregard Starfleet's "PD bible" in "Justice" and in "Who Watches the Watchers?" In both instances it was done to save people he was personally close to.

 

[Anwar]

"Watchers" was about also minimizing the fallout of their interference by at least setting the record straight on who they were rather than let their presence result in potential war and chaos.

"Justice" was about rescuing a member of his own crew from a death sentence that nobody was aware of since no observations or correspondence with said aliens had informed them of potential crimes.

And if a lesser advanced civilization was incapable of handling a problem its own environment throws at them, they aren't likely to be able to contribute anything since said in-adaptability already showed they weren't capable. It's like thinking a permanently crippled man could someday become a great gymnast.

 

[YARN]

And if a lesser advanced civilization was incapable of handling a problem its own environment throws at them, they aren't likely to be able to contribute anything since said in-adaptability already showed they weren't capable. It's like thinking a permanently crippled man could someday become a great gymnast.

Dear Anwar Noonien Singh,

We don't generally rescue people because we expect to get something from them, but because we believe that life has intrinsic value.

I shudder to think of how you would treat the disabled, since they show evolutionary weakness, and don't stand to offer you anything in exchange.

But even if we accept your premises you seem to mistakenly think that evolution actually has a telos - that it wants progress and higher-forms.

Evolution does not care either way, but you apparently do care. You value species in so far as "they are likely to be able to contribute" something to the universe. The contingencies of nature, the accidents that shape evolution (since there is no purpose or design, right?), however, don't care if a species is likely to produce great art or science or ... whatever.

Save for one random cataclysmic event beyond the foreseeable control of a species, that species might project to do great things in universe. In such case, we would have reason to violate the prime directive.

 

[sonak]

First off, I agree with YARN. Secondly, you realize Anwar, that Stephen Hawking has ALS and is in a wheelchair, right? You've heard of the scientific contributions he's made? How about those of people who need eyeglasses?(They have *gasp* EVOLUTIONARY DEFECTS!) Or have you taken Tylenol for headaches, or other medicine? That's interfering with nature and evolution, too. Your views seem to be a combination of eugenics/social darwinism, which are both pseudoscience. "worship" of evolution makes no more sense than "worship" of gravity, since they are both simply natural forces, yet I assume you have no objection to flying in an airplane?

 

[Anwar]

Nature and evolution eventually led to human intellect being able to remove itself from nature' will and be able to change their surroundings rather than allow their surroundings to change them. Technology, medicine, civilization are all the results of human mental and physical growth which came about because humans were able to survive all the natural obstacles life threw at them.

You're saying we should go to folks who can't handle what their own environment can throw at them either due to stupidity or lack of physical ability/creativity and be "Big Brother" to them and save them from obstacles in their path that any species will have to face inevitably, to the ultimate point that they never had to deal with serious problems. And people who have never had to deal with serious issues like that, will never grow up/develop.

Say, if a world is about to begin a nuclear war that will devastate the place. Do we intervene, disarm them all and preach to them over how they're backwards little babies, or do we just coast by and let them suffer the consequences of their own idiocy?

 

[BillJ]

Nature and evolution eventually led to human intellect being able to remove itself from nature' will and be able to change their surroundings rather than allow their surroundings to change them. Technology, medicine, civilization are all the results of human mental and physical growth which came about because humans were able to survive all the natural obstacles life threw at them.

You're saying we should go to folks who can't handle what their own environment can throw at them either due to stupidity or lack of physical ability/creativity and be "Big Brother" to them and save them from obstacles in their path that any species will have to face inevitably, to the ultimate point that they never had to deal with serious problems. And people who have never had to deal with serious issues like that, will never grow up/develop.

Say, if a world is about to begin a nuclear war that will devastate the place. Do we intervene, disarm them all and preach to them over how they're backwards little babies, or do we just coast by and let them suffer the consequences of their own idiocy?

So if Earth was in the path of an asteroid in say 1400 AD and a highly advanced civilization had the tools to stop it, they shouldn't?

There's doing it to yourself and then there's being a victim because you're not aware of the nature of the dangers around you.

 

[Destructor]

The first change seems to have come in the TNG era, when it seemed to be policy to not interfere even in the cases of natural disasters if the civilization was pre-warp, pre-alien contact. (See "Pen Pals," "Homeward," etc.)

Except that they DO interfere in those episodes, and any others you might care to name. And they DID irrevocably alter those cultures, forever. You can kind of see why they take it so seriously.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

The first change seems to have come in the TNG era, when it seemed to be policy to not interfere even in the cases of natural disasters if the civilization was pre-warp, pre-alien contact. (See "Pen Pals," "Homeward," etc.)

Except that they DO interfere in those episodes, and any others you might care to name. And they DID irrevocably alter those cultures, forever. You can kind of see why they take it so seriously.

In 'Pen Pals' they do interfere - breaking the prime directive - which has a beneficial effect to the helped species.

In 'Homeward' they don't interfere, callously letting millions die. Worf's non-starfleet brother interferes and his action have a beneficial effect on the helped specied (survival).

It's also worth noting that 'Homeward' introduces the ridiculous sociological notion that a culture will commit mass-suicide when encountering another culture (a notion repeatedly dismissed throughout history), much lke 'Dear doctor' introduces some equally false notions regarding evolution, this time.

 

[Anwar]

Nature and evolution eventually led to human intellect being able to remove itself from nature' will and be able to change their surroundings rather than allow their surroundings to change them. Technology, medicine, civilization are all the results of human mental and physical growth which came about because humans were able to survive all the natural obstacles life threw at them.

You're saying we should go to folks who can't handle what their own environment can throw at them either due to stupidity or lack of physical ability/creativity and be "Big Brother" to them and save them from obstacles in their path that any species will have to face inevitably, to the ultimate point that they never had to deal with serious problems. And people who have never had to deal with serious issues like that, will never grow up/develop.

Say, if a world is about to begin a nuclear war that will devastate the place. Do we intervene, disarm them all and preach to them over how they're backwards little babies, or do we just coast by and let them suffer the consequences of their own idiocy?

So if Earth was in the path of an asteroid in say 1400 AD and a highly advanced civilization had the tools to stop it, they shouldn't?

There's doing it to yourself and then there's being a victim because you're not aware of the nature of the dangers around you.

If some aliens had done that for the Dinosaurs, we wouldn't be here. See how "Helping" like that can have unforeseen negative effects?

 

[DevilEyes]

If you're not one who has strong objections to the way the Prime Directive is interpreted and applied in modern Trek, this thread may not matter to you. But at any rate...


As far as I understand it, in the days of the original series, the PD meant non-interference in the culture of pre-warp, pre-alien contact civilizations. Basically, don't tell them what kind of government to have, don't give them new technology they haven't actually developed themselves, etc. It DID NOT MEAN non-interference with natural disasters that threatened various civilizations.(This can be proved by the TOS episode "The Paradise Syndrome" where the Enterprise is trying to prevent an asteroid impact on a pre-alien contact civilization. I think this is the right episode, anyway.)

The first change seems to have come in the TNG era, when it seemed to be policy to not interfere even in the cases of natural disasters if the civilization was pre-warp, pre-alien contact. (See "Pen Pals," "Homeward," etc.)

Then, in the Voyager era, the PD seemed to mean whatever Janeway wanted. Even though the Kazon had warp drive capability and had contact with alien races, she wouldn't share Federation technology, because that would be "interference."

"Dear Doctor" is beyond the scope of this topic, since it's in a pre-PD time period, but it takes this continuing approach to a reprehensible level.

Now, the TOS-era PD could be defended on a flexible level, as long as one did not get rigid about its enforcement. (As Kirk clearly wasn't, witness "The Apple.") More technologically advanced civilizations probably shouldn't typically be going around willy-nilly interfering with other cultures and disrupting their development, but in the case of disasters that the less technologically-advanced cultures can't deal with, the UFP could still step in to help.


But to me, there is no reasonable defense for modern Trek's screw-up of the PD. I think that there was just a misinterpretation of the original concept, and it's only spiraled downward from there. Taken to the Voyager extreme, the Federation would have to be almost isolationist to avoid "cultural interference." Was this change for dramatic purposes? For example, it created conflict between Voyager and the Kazon, where otherwise there wouldn't really be a reason not to engage in trade with them.

.

sonak, I tend to agree with you. In TOS, the Prime Directive was meant much like the medical oath to "first do no harm". Only later was the PD taken to the extreme of "do nothing... period". Preventing a catastrophic natural disaster is quite different from interfering by giving them phasers and photon torpedoes. IMO, it is immoral to watch an entire race of people die because some rule was interpreted so literally.

ITA.

I read somewhere (can't remember where) that Gene Roddenberry was so insistent on respecting the PD in the early days of TNG that other writers grew to really dislike it. As such they deliberately set out to show the PD in a bad light. I don't know if that's true or not, but it certainly would explain the change in attitude.

At the expense of making Picard - who was treated as the embodiment of high ethics of the 24th century humans - look dogmatic, callous and very unsympathetic?

And furthermore, in "Homeward" they tied to justify this interpretation of the PD by having a character commit suicide and implying that this would happen to every one of his people if they found out the truth. "Dear Doctor" goes even further in trying to portray Phlox and Archer's solution as the right one. Not to mention that it is completely out of character for Archer, especially season 1 Archer- he was constantly getting involved and trying to save everyone in every episode, in a much riskier situations, and now he just decides to stand by and let all those people die for some far-fetched and absurd reasons, when helping them was very easy, and they had asked for help in the first place?

And if a lesser advanced civilization was incapable of handling a problem its own environment throws at them, they aren't likely to be able to contribute anything since said in-adaptability already showed they weren't capable. It's like thinking a permanently crippled man could someday become a great gymnast.

Dear Anwar Noonien Singh,

We don't generally rescue people because we expect to get something from them, but because we believe that life has intrinsic value.

I shudder to think of how you would treat the disabled, since they show evolutionary weakness, and don't stand to offer you anything in exchange.

But even if we accept your premises you seem to mistakenly think that evolution actually has a telos - that it wants progress and higher-forms.

Evolution does not care either way, but you apparently do care. You value species in so far as "they are likely to be able to contribute" something to the universe. The contingencies of nature, the accidents that shape evolution (since there is no purpose or design, right?), however, don't care if a species is likely to produce great art or science or ... whatever.

Save for one random cataclysmic event beyond the foreseeable control of a species, that species might project to do great things in universe. In such case, we would have reason to violate the prime directive.

Well said.

And BTW... interfering in a nuclear war and stopping a natural disaster are two very different things. For starters, you are far less likely to have the problem further escalate, instead of resolving it; and the asteroid is certainly not going to get pissed and target your world for destruction if you do get involved. (And with the natural disaster, you can't even pull the "they brought it on themselves" card, even if you think that it's a sound argument otherwise, which I don't think.)

Nature and evolution eventually led to human intellect being able to remove itself from nature' will and be able to change their surroundings rather than allow their surroundings to change them. Technology, medicine, civilization are all the results of human mental and physical growth which came about because humans were able to survive all the natural obstacles life threw at them.

You're saying we should go to folks who can't handle what their own environment can throw at them either due to stupidity or lack of physical ability/creativity and be "Big Brother" to them and save them from obstacles in their path that any species will have to face inevitably, to the ultimate point that they never had to deal with serious problems. And people who have never had to deal with serious issues like that, will never grow up/develop.

They most certainly won't grow up or develop if they all die!

"Son, it's high time you became more independent. I am not going to pamper you and protect you, or you'll never grow up to be your own man. That's why I didn't warn you that that car was about to hit you, and that's why I'm not going to call the ambulance or try to help you while you're lying there, even though I've had those first aid trainings. If you die, it's your own fault for not being more attentive and for not having learned how to administer first aid to yourself."

 

[Anwar]

Parenting your own children is a tad different than protecting complete strangers who happen to pass by. The Federation aren't the "Parents" of any alien race, they're just observers or fellow inhabitants of the Universe.